Le Mon, May 13, 2024 at 08:40:42PM +0200, Valentin Schneider a écrit :
> On 08/05/24 15:59, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Valentin Schneider a écrit :
> >> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ void noinstr ct_nmi_exit(void)
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* This NMI interrupted an RCU-idle CPU, restore RCU-idleness. */
> >> - trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Startirq"), ct_nmi_nesting(), 0, ct_rcu_watching());
> >> + trace_rcu_watching(TPS("Endirq"), ct_nmi_nesting(), 0, ct_rcu_watching());
> >
> > Ah the initial string was wrong and you're fixing it, right?
> >
> > Should be a seperate patch?
> >
>
> No, I'm just creating confusion for everyone involved (including myself) :(
> Dynticks start when RCU stops watching, so the naming logic gets flipped on
> its head.
>
> If I take the original comment from
> bd2b879a1ca5 ("rcu: Add tracing to irq/NMI dyntick-idle transitions")
> """
> as argument: "Start" for entering dyntick-idle mode, "Startirq" for
> entering it from irq/NMI
> """
Oh my!
>
> So here "Startirq" means "start dyntick mode from IRQ". With the name
> change, it should be "Endirq", since RCU stops watching, from IRQ...
>
> I know, a lot of confusion for 0 functional change :(
Ok your change looks good then.
Thanks.
